Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt

Abdelkader Lahmadi <abdelkader.lahmadi@loria.fr> Fri, 03 March 2017 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <abdelkader.lahmadi@loria.fr>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D101129715; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:18:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xQT6tJ6TBLfX; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0369E1296EE; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:17:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Abdelkader Lahmadi <abdelkader.lahmadi@loria.fr>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,236,1484002800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="262976026"
Received: from nat1-eduroam-montet.wifi.univ-lorraine.fr (HELO [10.10.105.59]) ([193.50.135.193]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Mar 2017 12:17:56 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D518C538-25C7-43AF-89E1-8A92D629B949"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
In-Reply-To: <c056c266-5206-e87c-3535-d765e94b58ed@brocade.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:17:56 +0100
Message-Id: <24A6EB4E-2AED-4A31-A066-8D6EDB8E7C73@loria.fr>
References: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A2260FE9@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <318bf874-2700-640e-e0c1-0ea7953b448f@gmail.com> <64CC7F98-8868-4BE5-ABE3-F6F01BF2FFF6@loria.fr> <cbc29c8a-5e11-7918-0afe-dfebafe0cd2c@gmail.com> <808e677f-f0ed-37de-2084-9f2074359658@brocade.com> <9F2B4045-D838-4D94-8B55-1599879537E2@loria.fr> <c056c266-5206-e87c-3535-d765e94b58ed@brocade.com>
To: PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/t8ULRlikAMCityD2w51UJjv3X2I>
Cc: "draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix.authors@ietf.org" <draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix.authors@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "IPFIX@ietf.org" <IPFIX@ietf.org>, "nmrg-chairs@ietf.org" <nmrg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipfix/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:18:00 -0000

Ok, more clear now.
So, we work on a new text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send you a version.

Best,
> On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:07, PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>; wrote:
> 
> Abdelkader, it was me who did the IE-doctors review. That's only concerned with the IANA request; it's not an IPFIX review of the document.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote:
>> Hello,
>> We haven’t really get a "proper review" of the document by IPFIX experts. Recently, we had a discussion with IANA and they asked IE-doctors to make a review, since that we received some points to be fixed regarding the proposed IE. I can forward to you the other comments from IE-doctors that we have received by IANA.
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues in the document.
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <pjaitken@brocade.com>; wrote:
>>> 
>>> Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX experts?
>>> 
>>> I see a request on November 23rd, but no reviews. So let me sign up for that.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> First, I took a quick look at the Figures in Appendix B:
>>> 
>>> Figure 1: the Field Count should be 5, not 2.
>>> 
>>> Figure 2: the size of the optional Padding field is wrong: the figure shows 9 bits rather than 8.
>>> 
>>> Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. The "geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined.
>>> 
>>> Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3.
>>> 
>>> Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and "geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined.
>>> 
>>> Figure 9: The sizes of the "CivicValue" data fields are not shown correctly. eg, "Inria Nancy-Grand Est" is depicted in 6 octets when it should contain 21. Therefore the Figure is misleading and difficult to understand; it is not a good example. Please redraw the figure correctly. Please mark the variable-lengths eg "vlen = 21".
>>> 
>>> Figure 11:
>>>    The Set IDs (311, 312, 313) do not correspond to the Template IDs in Figure 10 (306, 307, 308).
>>>    Again, the "Inria Nancy-Grand Grand Est" field is depicted in 6 octets rather than the requisite 27. Without the repeated "Grand", the 21 would be correct. Please write "vlen=21"
>>>    The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 seems wrong.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This document is not ready for publication. Please post an updated version so I can check that all the IPFIX details are correct.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> P.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix